Atheism vs. Theism

[Vertex]

You ask this question is like you ask a couple, why they love each other so much. When you see this couple, you may feel nothing for the woman, but the man feel deeply in love. And you ask can this man gives you a logic and sicentific explaination, why and how can he loves this woman, he may say this woman is kind, and compassionate, and forgiving and many more, after you hear it, can you love her like he does? may you can, may you cannot. But if you try to use scientific method to prove their love, you may never find out. Why? because the love happens in themselves, something invisible happened in their heart, the prove and evidence made them love each other is real as science and logic, or beyond science and logic.

 

why people believe God? because the relationship with God happens in their heart, you cannot see. It is so real for them that anything oppose it not important. It's like when you say this woman scientifically isn't lovable, but this man won't change his love for her. If you want to find a woman to love, you have to experience that in yourself. certainly science won't take you there, you have to use your heart.

 

But even love can be explained on a scientific level. Just because someone can't explain a preference doesn't mean there isn't a huge underlying set of variables that push and pull to arrive at such decisions (which is true) to the subconscious. However unromantic it is -- the heart, too, can be explained with science.

 

The scientific method is a great method, but we can't utilize it to the fullest because we are limited in the way we can test. We can't keep track of every single variable, granted, but I've never understood why we have to simply say "It's too hard to explain -- we can't understand it. We just feel God and therefore accept that as our truth."

 

 

FleshandBones: I should probably reword it. When I say "don't understand" I really mean "aren't aware." Not everyone knows the arguments in favor or what science has shown so far.

[quankanne]

a lot of good dialogue here, guys, and I appreciate you keeping it on a level where true learning can be done

 

someone (Vertex?) posed the question, "In the face of all we are able to show with science, why have faith in God?" and it reminded me of the explanation my grandniece, then age two, gave for calling my sister (her mom) a certain name that no one had ever heard before: Because she is.

 

like that baby, I understand that some things, like faith, aren't necessarily explainable or quantifiable, but just exist for me. It doesn't mean that I don't believe in the explanations others have had devoted their lives to finding and providing; it just means that I understand – and accept*– that there's more than just an intellectual side of me. I have a spiritual side that complements that intellectual side. As Lovelybird points out, you cannot see the relationship God has with someone because it's innate, but doesn't mean that it's without value to the person who possesses it. Hard to explain, but again, as my baby says, it just is. On the outset, that's a woefully inadequate explanation, but it doesn't make it any less true

 

But even love can be explained on a scientific level. Just because someone can't explain a preference doesn't mean there isn't a huge underlying set of variables that push and pull to arrive at such decisions (which is true) to the subconscious. However unromantic it is -- the heart, too, can be explained with science.

 

and that's a wonderous bit of knowledge to possess. However, we are more than just intellectual beings seeking knowledge; we have another component to us that operates on a more visceral level, and we often put our faith in those "gut feelings" – just look at love relationships. The chemistry might be identified, and even scientifically explained, but we instinctively know if it's a healthy relationship even if we haven't racked up empirical evidence to prove it.

 

faith is like that. For the people who possess it, it's kind of a spidey-sense for things spiritual, of Someone who is at the font of our creation.

[FleshNBones]

The scientific method is a great method, but we can't utilize it to the fullest because we are limited in the way we can test. We can't keep track of every single variable, granted, but I've never understood why we have to simply say "It's too hard to explain -- we can't understand it. We just feel God and therefore accept that as our truth."

Perhaps God is one of the known unknowns, but you could never get comfortable with it.

[quankanne]

you'll find less inequality and racism if people I believed "I am born here because of my accident of birth" instead of the current way of thinking"God blessed me specificly with faith, with this life, I'm special, we are the righteous holy people and these other people living way over there are the heathens, poisoning the world with their evil teachings, they will go to hell if they do not repent to my system of belief" (this sentence applies to almost every religion without exception)

 

I can see what you're trying to say, but you're making some very broad generalizations about theism – you confuse those people who give a false impression of their faith of faith as a whole, and that is very misleading.

 

I don't believe I am here as "an accident of birth," but that I have a specific destiny to fulfill as the tail-end of a big Mexican-Catholic family from South Texas. I am here for a reason, I have been blessed with this faith, I am special. I truly believe this.

 

however, I'm not so stupid to someone is going to go to hell for not accepting my faith system, or that I'm righteous – I only know that the best way to witness this faith is to shine brightly with it so that God calls others to him through me. Trying to evangelize by bashing people over the head is what leads to inequality and a lack of respect for others, IMO!

[Vertex]

. However, we are more than just intellectual beings seeking knowledge; we have another component to us that operates on a more visceral level, and we often put our faith in those "gut feelings" – just look at love relationships.

 

Faith is like that. For the people who possess it, it's kind of a spidey-sense for things spiritual, of Someone who is at the font of our creation.

 

I suppose this is where I would disagree -- I think everything can be purely intellectualized. We do have a level to us, as humans, that operate on a visceral level, but even that level can be described as a function of certain evolutionary processes or physical procedures. Our feelings, our thoughts, our "gut instincts," our love, our "spidey-senses," and even our feelings of "spirituality" and "meaning" are still outputs of a physical mind. Each one can be explained on a purely physical and "intellectualized" level, and the brain can, too, be explained by natural causes.

 

As for instinctively knowing chemistry, the chemistry we are able to feel on instinct is the response mechanism from an otherwise complex set of procedures and interactions which are nevertheless physical. The complex and simple both being intertwined here yet again.

 

This is mainly my issue with how someone can fully be aware of both sides and yet still choose theism. All these points are still primarily based off of instinct, which in itself is a physically-bound and evolutionary-derived formation -- and instinct does not mean something is necessarily true. Instinct can appeal to emotion, but again, emotion does not make things true.

[TheLoneSock]

Reducing everything down to a science is BORING. Atheists will never understand faith, or why people believe in something that isn't tangible.

 

They require proof of everything, otherwise it must not be true. I liken it to someone afraid of jumping into a lake, because they can't see below the surface like you can in a pool.

 

There is no discussing anything with atheists, they have to be right, and are confused when you don't accept their logic.

 

SCIENCE told everyone the world was flat. SCIENCE told everyone the Earth was at the center of the universe. SCIENCE told everyone that the sun revolved around us. SCIENCE says we evolved from apes- yet the missing link has never been found. SCIENCE is not perfect.

 

To call the BIBLE falty is extremely hypocritical. Especially since it has been around for 2000 years and counting- it must be doing something right.

[Toki]

Reducing everything down to a science is BORING. Atheists will never understand faith, or why people believe in something that isn't tangible.

 

Wrong. Atheists deal with it every second, of every minute, of every hour, of every day... etc. They just refuse to give into superstition.

 

They require proof of everything, otherwise it must not be true. I liken it to someone afraid of jumping into a lake, because they can't see below the surface like you can in a pool.

 

Ah, but a Scientist would know what is at the bottom of the pool, or at least have a pretty good idea. With Religion, it's like jumping out of a Spaceship, and expecting Space to Have Air, because a Book said it did.

 

There is no discussing anything with atheists, they have to be right, and are confused when you don't accept their logic.

 

And this is different from theists how? They provide evidence, even if it is minute; which is still more of a compelling argument than the one who didn't bring evidence.

 

SCIENCE told everyone the world was flat. SCIENCE told everyone the Earth was at the center of the universe. SCIENCE told everyone that the sun revolved around us. SCIENCE says we evolved from apes- yet the missing link has never been found. SCIENCE is not perfect.

 

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Negligible. Wrong.

 

Greek Scholars (not scientists) proposed the Earth Was Flat, which was fine, because they didn't have tools to measure the the depth, width, and length of the horizon.

 

They Also Proposed the Earth was the center of the universe, because this was the home of the gods, and Mount Olympus. Hardly an argument against Science.

 

Negligible because the evidence is there, if not the actual piece. We're also finding out, that we may have indeed found the missing link, Science doesn't jump to conclusions without first having assessed the material that is has amassed. Religion finds the material (or doesn't find any) and then jumps to a conclusion.

 

Wrong in the most profound statement of wrong. It has everything to do with perfection. Science is perfect, humans aren't, but the more evidence found, the more perfect it is. Science is the pursuit of perfection. Religion is the pursuit of spiritual perfection.

 

To call the BIBLE falty is extremely hypocritical. Especially since it has been around for 2000 years and counting- it must be doing something right.

 

It isn't faulty, the bible is fine the way it is. There isn't anything wrong with the bible. Its the same as saying the Mona Lisa is faulty, because it's old. However, there has to be something said of people who still look at a 2000 year old piece of literature, and believe every word of it as truth, I don't do the same with Aristotle, even though Aristotlian Logic was taught as truth for well over 1000 years, don't believe it for even a second the same won't happen to the bible, since it was written almost 600 years after Aristotle's works. That means the bible has about 100 more years until it beats Aristotle's work in overall use.

[TheLoneSock]

Wrong. Atheists deal with it every second, of every minute, of every hour, of every day... etc. They just refuse to give into superstition.

 

Oh my you poor martyr!

 

Ah, but a Scientist would know what is at the bottom of the pool, or at least have a pretty good idea. With Religion, it's like jumping out of a Spaceship, and expecting Space to Have Air, because a Book said it did.

 

Right, whatever.

 

And this is different from theists how? They provide evidence, even if it is minute; which is still more of a compelling argument than the one who didn't bring evidence.

 

Which evidence is more compelling is based SOLELY on your opinion.

 

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Negligible. Wrong.

 

Thanks for proving my point that there is no discussing anything with an atheist.

 

Greek Scholars (not scientists) proposed the Earth Was Flat, which was fine, because they didn't have tools to measure the the depth, width, and length of the horizon.

 

Lol, who are you to say what they were? They were the high minds of their time, they were the scientists of their era. FURTHERMORE, this belief was carried well into the 15th century, long after greek scientists were gone.

 

They Also Proposed the Earth was the center of the universe, because this was the home of the gods, and Mount Olympus. Hardly an argument against Science.

 

Source for putting religion behind what was then a scientific 'understanding'?

 

Negligible because the evidence is there, if not the actual piece. We're also finding out, that we may have indeed found the missing link, Science doesn't jump to conclusions without first having assessed the material that is has amassed. Religion finds the material (or doesn't find any) and then jumps to a conclusion.

 

Ardi is not the missing link, it is just another link. FURTHERMORE, Darwin's theory of human origin still doesn't disprove religion. Christianity is the belief of creationism. Science has yet to prove that we weren't in fact created from a higher power. So while you scoff at the lack of proof behind faith, you still cannot DISPROVE creationism either.

 

Wrong in the most profound statement of wrong. It has everything to do with perfection. Science is perfect, humans aren't, but the more evidence found, the more perfect it is.

 

Oh of course! Because just like the internet, it's pure truth!

 

Religion is the pursuit of spiritual perfection.

 

You may have just answered the OP's question for many people in that simple statement. The persuit of spiritual perfection is an illogical belief?

 

It isn't faulty, the bible is fine the way it is. There isn't anything wrong with the bible. Its the same as saying the Mona Lisa is faulty, because it's old. However, there has to be something said of people who still look at a 2000 year old piece of literature, and believe every word of it as truth, I don't do the same with Aristotle, even though Aristotlian Logic was taught as truth for well over 1000 years, don't believe it for even a second the same won't happen to the bible, since it was written almost 600 years after Aristotle's works. That means the bible has about 100 more years until it beats Aristotle's work in overall use.

 

Prove to me there isn't a God, when you have that proof, you can argue. Until then, leave people to their beliefs.

[Toki]

Oh my you poor martyr!

How is that being a martyr? Exactly.

 

Right, whatever.

mmmm... so that's how it is, interesting.

 

Which evidence is more compelling is based SOLELY on your opinion.

 

Please. I'm interested in seeing any theory put forth by Creationists in relation to the Big Bang Theory and Evolution. What there isn't any that hasn't been thoroughly ripped apart? Nonsense.

 

Thanks for proving my point that there is no discussing anything with an atheist.

 

Never said I was an atheist.

 

 

 

Lol, who are you to say what they were?

 

They were no more a Scientist, than a Monk was in the 12th Century, they looked to the stars and contemplated. They discovered and then attributed this to the five elements the fifth being aether a clear indication to their love of discovering new aspects of their gods, which is a far cry from modern science, excepting Pythegoras and a few others.

 

 

Ardi is not the missing link, it is just another link. FURTHERMORE, Darwin's theory of human origin still doesn't disprove religion. Christianity is the belief of creationism. Science has yet to prove that we weren't in fact created from a higher power. So while you scoff at the lack of proof behind faith, you still cannot DISPROVE creationism either.

 

Ah, but Ardi is better evidence than *poof* Here's some humans. It's a real kick in the balls for a God who was actually, you know, mysterious and all powerful. I won't say there isn't a god, but Christianity makes it into a real small, and incredibly irrational thing. I could just as easily say that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the Universe, and what could you do to prove me wrong?

 

Oh of course! Because just like the internet, it's pure truth!

 

I just respond at the same levels as the poster.

 

You may have just answered the OP's question for many people in that simple statement. The persuit of spiritual perfection is an illogical belief?

 

You can have both real science, and your faith, they're only as exclusive as you're willing to make them...

 

Prove to me there isn't a God, when you have that proof, you can argue. Until then, leave people to their beliefs.

 

I'll do that, when you can prove to me there isn't an invisible Flying Spaghetti Monster that created the earth in 2 days, put fossils in the ground to trick us, and that Piracy and Global Warming aren't in fact connected. Seriously, go check the grafts, you'll be in for a shocker.

[Peaceful Guy]

Opinions:

1. I am okay with anyone's religious belief as long as it is not imposed on me, and as long as I am not discriminated based on my beliefs. I also extend the same concept to others.

 

good, but ill bet you pester girls at parties about it! just kidding, but it happens..

 

2. I believe science and logic is the only way to examine the universe --...

 

science can be faith based too.. not science by definition, but in practice, definitely!

 

...any "mystery" or "enigma" is simply something we do not yet know.

 

yup, by definition.

 

3. Dangerous opinion, but here goes: I feel that those who are not atheist simply do not understand all the arguments in favor.

 

i feel otherwise. and, "simply do not understand..".. you're an ass! again, joking, because i got what you really meant. but also, you do think a little higher of your opinions than others, right? not such a bad thing..

 

4. I believe we can explain everything (and I do mean everything) without the need for a God or external force -- I am very much against the "God of the gaps" argument.

 

this is two extremes. i don't think we (humans) can explain everything.. the universe is too big to comprehend.. and i don't think that means there's a god or gods either. ex. "if sarah's not a car she's a chicken." see what i mean?

 

And so, my questions:

1. If you are indeed a God-believer, why are you?

 

direct experience my man.

 

2. If you are religious and yet still understand all points in favor of atheism, why do you still choose theism?

 

don't confuse god (just a word, with many definitions..), with religion.

 

As a hardcore atheist,

 

hardcore anything is usually not good.

 

look man, sorry for joking around, but i took it seriously and answered honestly. i just hope you don't decide that i was "too stupid" to get it, and that's why i disagree with you. ill be checking back here to see what you think!

[Vertex]

Reducing everything down to a science is BORING. Atheists will never understand faith, or why people believe in something that isn't tangible.

 

They require proof of everything, otherwise it must not be true. I liken it to someone afraid of jumping into a lake, because they can't see below the surface like you can in a pool.

 

There is no discussing anything with atheists, they have to be right, and are confused when you don't accept their logic.

 

SCIENCE told everyone the world was flat. SCIENCE told everyone the Earth was at the center of the universe. SCIENCE told everyone that the sun revolved around us. SCIENCE says we evolved from apes- yet the missing link has never been found. SCIENCE is not perfect.

 

To call the BIBLE falty is extremely hypocritical. Especially since it has been around for 2000 years and counting- it must be doing something right.

 

 

To this, I would say the following: Science may be "boring" to some but it doesn't make it not true. The reason why atheists and theists tend to disagree, I think, is that they simply operate on different systems. Someone who believes on faith believes on faith, whereas an atheist examines proof as the foundation for religious beliefs or lack thereof. We can say "science has been wrong about this and this in the past," but that is the beauty of the scientific method -- we are ALWAYS trying to expand upon previous knowledge to come to a greater truth and understanding. The past hundred years have provided an EXPONENTIAL growth in the proof -- science has been evermore piling on the evidence and refining itself. And yet, over all these years, the Bible is pretty much the same as it ever was, so that is my issue in that regard. It doesn't offer nearly the rigorous type of explanation that science does.

 

The Bible contains passages that are claiming that, aside from the Bible being the word of God, it is his literal word from which all must be followed (with nothing added or subtracted from it, from Deuteronomy). If these passages are not true then they are direct contradictions (since they claim everything in the Bible is the true word of God which must be followed). So, are these passages true? How do you reconcile the difference between literal and allegorical interpretation?

 

How could these passages possibly be true if there are things in the Bible that are demonstratively false? Further, how can these passages be true if we cannot properly discern PRIOR TO having more knowledge on the matter which passages are literal and which passages are allegory? Thus they become direct contradictions, and the problem of internal consistency arises. My point comes up again - where is the consistency and continuity between allegory and literal meaning within the Bible? There is no empirical way to find it, and thus no empirical way to ever "prove" Christianity as objectively the moral foundation of our universe.

 

What are your thoughts on the matter?

 

 

There is no discussing anything with atheists, they have to be right, and are confused when you don't accept their logic.

 

Please don't derail this into a flame-thread, as that's not the intent. I'd like to keep things here as civil as possible. I would say, though, as an atheist, that it is confusing to me if someone doesn't accept a certain logic because it's basically putting faith in a very low-probability event. It would be like me showing someone a few thousand times that I can drop an apple and have it fall to the ground, only to have that person tell me that they have a strong faith that the next time I drop the apple, it will float up instead.

 

If I say, "But I've just shown you 1000 times that the apple will fall. I can also show you countless examples of gravity and how it works. I can even show you the mathematical rigor behind it that is consistent with every other phenomena we encounter," it would be like having a theist reply: "Well, that's all fine and dandy, but you can't prove to me that it WON'T float upward next time you drop it! There's always that chance!" To me, a theistic belief is a belief in something so improbable and likely untrue -- this is why I cannot understand why people can be fully aware of the scientific proof and yet still theistic.

Edited October 30, 2009 by Vertex

[disgracian]

You think science refutes God. Others think science explains God. Einstein himself thought the latter.

Not god in the sense that most people think of, but a term that is interchangeable with "nature".

 

Cheers,

D.

[disgracian]

It does not guide us, and it does not improve the human condition. Like and sideshow, it is brief and unfulfilling.

Then I, for one, suggest that you shun this unfulfilling sideshow and foresake all that science has provided us. Stop using the internet, grow your own food and abstain from modern medicine.

I never like the whole "there is always a logical explanation."

Tell us something we don't already know.

I think a lot of the leaders (more like writers) in the athiest movement are really shameless self promoters. Their message is just product targeted to a specific audience. It is just pornography of a different sort.

Just like televangelists then.

 

Cheers,

D.

[quankanne]

:laugh: let's just hope the atheists have BETTER HAIR, D!

 

the beauty of the scientific method -- we are ALWAYS trying to expand upon previous knowledge to come to a greater truth and understanding.

 

for theists, it's a natural thing to include a faith-based perspective to round out said knowledge. Ideally, it doesn't take away from this knowledge, but supplements it. Kinda like how a couple of glugs of merlot round out homemade spaghetti sauce. It's good without either, but there's a depth that this particular wine adds to my sauce. Bad analogy, perhaps, but some merit to it

 

the biggest argument one can have about Judeo-Christian believers is that they base their beliefs on the Bible, but you've got to understand it isn't meant to be a scientific or historical account of man's maturation, but an account of his spiritual growth. If you look at it ONLY from a scientific perspective, it's not going to jibe. Nor is it meant to.

 

again, it's going back to that visceral thing, which doesn't make sense to those of a scientific bent; however, to a believer, it does. The trick is to be able to live out those beliefs in a way that are peaceful to the rest of the community. How many people who otherwise have no use for faith or God find the work of someone like Mother Teresa of Calcutta so inspiring?

[Vertex]

If you look at it ONLY from a scientific perspective, it's not going to jibe. Nor is it meant to.

 

again, it's going back to that visceral thing, which doesn't make sense to those of a scientific bent; however, to a believer, it does. The trick is to be able to live out those beliefs in a way that are peaceful to the rest of the community. How many people who otherwise have no use for faith or God find the work of someone like Mother Teresa of Calcutta so inspiring?

 

It may provide inspiration -- it may provide peace -- but it doesn't make it true with respect to the workings of the universe or its origin.

[Peaceful Guy]

hey, still waiting on that response.. also, i wanted to point out that pointing out how ridiculous some religious beliefs are doesn't in any way prove that there isn't a god. sort of like if i didn't believe in science, but when i explained why, i quoted some idiot whose scientific method was totally flawed and in no way spoke for you at all.. you see the danger in this logic?

[627]

most of the theists here are christians, I hope someone will answer me on my first post here, about the things I said

 

and answer me on these set of questions please

it seems accordign to christianity(and to so many other religions) God has like a double personnality

he wants you to believe in him, but he made science and logic against him

he wants you to know he is there for you but he makes no miracles and no effort at all to show it

he wants you to find him but he will not drop you any clear signs

life is a test, except every human got a different one with different difficulty

you pray asking for something, if it happenes, God made it happen, if it doesn't, it's God's will

he knows what you want before you ask it, and he might not give it to you regardless of whether you pray or not, why bother?

 

I have seen the ceremonies in church on sunday(what's the word for that again?) basicly the priest repeats the same set of words(like magic words) and actions at precise given moments, holding a cross and wearing some weird clothe around an alter with a cup in the middle

what sets you apart from the heathens that used to sacrifice goats and dance around the fire? (when I was a kid I remember they gave us examples of heathens and we laughed at the idea, now I see there is no difference)

would jesus not come to the ceremony and bless you all if you actualy changed the way the ceremony goes?

why do the people need to go to church every sunday? there is nothing new, I already memorised everything after 3 years of attending, ironicly the priest who has been hosting the ceremony for decades, still needs to read the words from the book

 

most say that they do not worship objects but the holy God they do not see, yet if a picture of the blond guy with green eyes that is assumed to be the middle eastern jesus, gets torn a bit, many would not dare throw it in the trash

if you step on the picture of the blue eyes guy with blond hair, you will pick up the picture, kiss it, say you're sorry and then pray for forgiveness

 

in church you kneel and pray in front of a statue, many would not dare come up to the alter and pray from there, I want to see a true believer in God, that would come to church and kneel with his back turned to the alter and the statue, that is when I will respect the believer as someone who knows what he is doing...

 

so many questions, so many illogical things

[Vertex]

hey, still waiting on that response.. also, i wanted to point out that pointing out how ridiculous some religious beliefs are doesn't in any way prove that there isn't a god. sort of like if i didn't believe in science, but when i explained why, i quoted some idiot whose scientific method was totally flawed and in no way spoke for you at all.. you see the danger in this logic?

 

You cannot disprove a God. You can't disprove Zeus, or Apollo, or Thor, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, either. How can we disprove something if we're always moving the goalposts away? "God" is deliberately defined in a way that is impossible to disprove with science because he is always defined to fall outside of it -- he's always the "possible variable we may not know yet, but it could exist, and we have faith in it." How can you disprove a God if people are going to insist that no matter how much proof we amass, he could always fall outside of that proof?

 

This isn't a matter of misquoting -- it's a logical problem of how God is even defined. As for "direct experience," you're going to need to elaborate and show beyond reasonable doubt that it wasn't some sort of hindsight bias/hallucination/scenario with another possible explanation, and it must be a truth that is true for all -- otherwise it can't be true, and therefore can't be the correct explanation.

[quankanne]

It may provide inspiration -- it may provide peace -- but it doesn't make it true with respect to the workings of the universe or its origin.

 

maybe not, but it sure does make the world go more smoothly when dealing with humanity! Science cannot necessarily do that when it remains impersonal ...

[quankanne]

so many questions, so many illogical things

 

from what you've asked, it sounds like you're a disgruntled believer (possibly Catholic in flavor, though whether Latin or Eastern rite, I have no idea). Honestly, do you think you'd accept any answer someone would give? Even if God personally delivered?

 

the answers are all around us, so one must be committed to discovering them. The interesting thing is that if we pursue knowledge for the sake of science or intellectualism, it's acceptable. But, if someone pursues it for the sake of spiritual growth, it's unacceptable. What makes it so wrong? Why are some people threatened by it?

[northstar1]

Reducing everything down to a science is BORING. Atheists will never understand faith, or why people believe in something that isn't tangible.

 

Quite the opposite, I would think blindly following only one source of information without question would be the boring choice. What is boring about trying to find answers through scientific pursuit?

 

There is no discussing anything with atheists, they have to be right, and are confused when you don't accept their logic.

 

This falls on both sides

 

SCIENCE told everyone the world was flat. SCIENCE told everyone the Earth was at the center of the universe. SCIENCE told everyone that the sun revolved around us. SCIENCE says we evolved from apes- yet the missing link has never been found. SCIENCE is not perfect..

 

Well, they were Philosphers, but I understand what you are trying to get at.

 

Ofcourse, religion had only allowed theories that work with their dogma to be publicly accepted and discussed.

 

Whereas science encourages free though and the pursuit of knowledge and how things work, religion over history has encouraged only devotion to one source.

 

An example: The Roman Catholic church adopted Aristotles view of a Geocentric, finite universe contained in a sphere. This was considered the only truth because it allowed the idea of this sphere being moved by the First Unmoved Mover.

 

Ofcourse, when Copernicus and Galileo came along centuries later and published the definitive system of a heliocentric universe, it was considered heresy and their works were banned, and both men where ofcourse heavily censured, arrested and tried. Which then led to many works of science being prohibited and banned by the Roman Curia and so on and so on for centuries

 

You are right, science is not perfect, but it offers evidence that contiously shows creationism to be pretty much inaccurate.

Edited October 30, 2009 by northstar1
alignment

[627]

you speak of science and logic as if it is some foreign entity that you can choose to either follow or discard

 

you're not putting your faith in God, you are putting your faith in the people that told you the story of jesus, you yourself did not see jesus do these things. you put your faith in some unknown middle easterns who wrote the gospels 2000 years ago

[Vertex]

It may provide inspiration -- it may provide peace -- but it doesn't make it true with respect to the workings of the universe or its origin.

 

maybe not, but it sure does make the world go more smoothly when dealing with humanity! Science cannot necessarily do that when it remains impersonal ...

 

I'd personally argue that religion has caused much against its favor -- much of the world's most brutal savageries. Regardless, what I am after is not so much the best way to grease human and cultural proceedings, but an underlying truth to the universe. Science is an impersonal thing, but that is the beauty of it. If it's true for you, it's true for me, and true for everyone.

[627]

maybe not, but it sure does make the world go more smoothly when dealing with humanity! Science cannot necessarily do that when it remains impersonal

science can give you a law that will make sure people get the most freedome and happiness possible with the least harm

what is the law? it is science, you think the constitution was written on a rock and governments applied it?

tax organisation, laws against murder and stealing and littering, copyright violations, wellfare

stuff that religion did not mention, it is what made societies thrive the way they did in countries like the US and european countries. these laws that were based on careful study and logic

 

psycology is science, sociology is science, statistics is science, they can understand and deal with human needs

[Vertex]

you speak of science and logic as if it is some foreign entity that you can choose to either follow or discard

 

you're not putting your faith in God, you are putting your faith in the people that told you the story of jesus, you yourself did not see jesus do these things. you put your faith in some unknown middle easterns who wrote the gospels 2000 years ago

 

This is what, too, has bothered me. Science is true for everyone. Even a Christian has to accept that they are not exempt from what we discover with science.

 

It bothers me as well when pro-Creationists say "What, you think we're here by random chance?" Evolution is not random at ALL, but rather deterministic.

 

Consider that we have hundreds of billions of galaxies, with each galaxy containing hundreds of billions of stars, which in turn contain a spattering of planets. You're going to tell me that out of that absurdly high figure -- those countless planets, only one supports life? The countless number of permutations and star/planet types practically screams that there are other planets capable of supporting life. People think that because we are intelligent, sentient beings, we must be intelligently designed, when we can explain our existence as the result of necessary conditions. Earth just happens to be one of those few planets that can support life, and thusly, here we are. Evolution can describe how complex systems like the human body -- brain, heart, eye, etc -- can arise from the infinitely simple, continuously molded by our environment. You can tell me "We were intelligently designed," but I can just as easily say "We don't need a creator when this planet had the perfect conditions allowing for life of our form."

Edited October 30, 2009 by Vertex